20141164 Ver 1_401 Application_20141114

1 a
November 3, 2014
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 -5006
Attention Mr Steven Kichefski
N.0 Division of Water Resources
401 and Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1650
Attention Ms Karen Higgins
aml M"41
T MI
2 0 1 4 1 1 6 4
�D
NOV 0 6 2014 '
DENR - WATER RESOURCES
401 & BUFFER PERMITTING
Reference: After -the -Fact Notification for Nationwide Permit 27
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications
Charlotte, North Carolina
S &ME Project No 4335 -14 -218
Dear Mr. Ktchefski
On behalf of Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS), S &ME, Inc
(S &ME) is submitting this notification for impacts to waters of the U S in accordance
with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 (Aquatic Habitat
Restoration, Establishment and Enhancement) The project involves repairs and
modifications to approximately 888 linear feet (if) of stream enhancements along
Douglas Branch (a perennial tributary of Briar Creek) in Charlotte, North Carolina. This
stream reach is part of the Cyrus / Douglas Stream Restoration Project (USACE Action
ID 2003 - 30554, DWR# 03- 0244), wluch is currently in Year 5 of mitigation monitoring
After construction of the repairs were completed, it was determined that the project was
most likely authorized under NWP 27 as it involved the installation of a number of new
in- channel enhancements such as constructed riffles and new cross vanes. As the project
is already complete, this request for authorization is being submitted as an After - the -Fact
Notification (AFN) instead of the typical Pre - Construction Notification (PCN)
The project is also authorized under North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR)
Water Quality Certification (WQC) No 3885 As the proposed project is designed for
the sole purpose of streambank stabilization, is based on natural channel design
techniques and does not exceed 3 structures per 100 feet of stream bank, written
concurrence from DWR is not required for authorization under WQC 3885 This AFN is
S &ME, INC / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273 -5560 / p 704 523 4726 f 704 525 3953 / www smeinc corn

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 - 14-218
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3. 2014
being provided as a courtesy notification to DWR, for the record only, as no written
authorization is required.
The location of the project area is depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), the
appropriate portions of the Charlotte East, N C. (1993) USGS Topographic Map (Figure
2), and on the Project Design Plans (Figure 3)
In support of this application, please find enclosed the following:
• Figures Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2),
Project Design Plans (Figure 3)„
• Appendix I: Pre - Construction Notification (PCN) form; and
• Appendix II. Site Photographs
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In the spring of 2008, CMSWS installed channel enhancement measures along an
approximately 982 If segment of Douglas Branch located immediately downstream of
Eastway Drive (see Figures 1, Site Vicinity and Figure 2, USGS Topographic Map).
These channel enhancements were installed as a part of the second phase of the Cyrus /
Douglas Branch Stream Restoration Project with the goal restoring and enhance aquatic
habitat through natural channel design and bio- engineering while also generating stream
mitigation credits for City projects
Enhancement efforts along this segment included installation of rock wing and cross
vanes, localized grading, matting and planting of some eroding banks, installation of a
constructed riffle near the downstream end of the enhancement section, and construction
of a rock plunge pool downstream of the culvert under Eastway Drive. Though full
Priority 1 restoration was conducted along the Douglas Branch downstream of this area,
in- channel enhancements were deemed the most appropriate for this area as it was largely
confined between a steep slope to the south and a retention wall behind a shopping center
and sewer line that ran immediately adjacent to the stream to the north. Additionally, the
surrounding areas were located in a mature forested habitat and installation of
enhancement measures would only require limited clearing of trees Authorization for
the Cyrus Douglas Stream Restoration Project under NWP 27 (and the associated
Jurisdictional Determination of project waters) was detailed in USACE Action ID 2003-
30554 and the corresponding North Carolina WQC authorization was detailed under
DWR Project Number 03 -0244
During the subsequent monitoring period, it became apparent that a number of stability
concerns still remained for this reach. Many of the in- channel structures did not appear
to be significantly improving stream function, and areas of bank erosion and bed
degradation continued to be noted. Additionally, a number of the installed vanes showed
signs of instability with the potential for future failure. In order to address these stability
concerns and better enhance the stream condition along this reach, CMSWS contracted
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. to develop a repair plan As impacts to jurisdictional
waters due to stream restoration repairs are typically considered to be authorized under
the original NWP 27 authorization with no further notification of agencies required,

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 -14 -218
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3, 2014
installation of these repair measures occurred in between September and October of
2014 Upon further assessment of the proposed repairs, it was noted that a number of in-
channel structure installations and bank grading activities occurred that were outside of
the areas originally authorized. It was therefore determined that USACE notification and
authorization was likely required for the completed project under NWP 27.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
On October 17, 2014, Mr. D. David Homans of S &ME visited the project area to
document the repairs that had occurred. It should be noted that S &ME had been
responsible for the development Year 1 through Year 5 monitoring reports of the Cyrus /
Douglas Branch Stream restoration, and therefore had performed site observations along
this reach annually since 2010, including observations that occurred on September 14,
2014, prior to the installation of the repairs and modifications detailed herein
Representative photographs of the post - construction field observations, as well as
corresponding pre- repair photographs included in Appendix II, and the locations of the
photos are detailed on Figure 3
Within the project area, Douglas Branch is a moderately- sized, relatively high gradient,
perennial channel Bank width ranges between 15 and 25 feet, with fairly steep and
somewhat undercut banks in some areas. The channel bed is made up primarily of
hardpan saprolite which functions largely as bedrock, with very few interspersed areas of
gravel, sand, and silt deposition As stated previously, a number of boulder cross vanes
and wing vanes had been installed in the bed as a part of the initial channel enhancement,
prior to repairs, many of these structures were not well -buried and were somewhat
perched over the channel bed, partially due to the preponderance of hardpan substrate
Prior to repairs, a few areas of bare and partially undercut banks were observed which
were not addressed through the initial channel enhancement either due to topographic
access restrictions or because they were made up of bedrock -like hardpan where further
erosion was unlikely
The riparian area adjacent surrounding the project area was made up of mature forest,
dominated by beech (Fagus grandifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar
(Lrriodendron tulipifera), and green ash (Fraxtnus pennsylvanica), with a subcanopy
dominated by pawpaw (Asimina trrloba), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), and saplings
of the overstory species. Herbaceous cover was dominated by invasive and introduced
species, primarily English ivy (Hedera helix) and mondo grass (Ophropogonjaponicus)
Previously a large area of the highly invasive bushkiller vine (Cayratiajaponrca) was
present in the upper end of the reach, though eradication efforts by CMSWS had largely
eliminated it by 2013 Most of the northern side of side of the project reach is
immediately adjacent to a high retaining wall that separate the forested riparian area from
the back of a large commercial building (formerly Walmart) located in Eastway
Commons commercial complex. A sewer line and associated manholes are also present
between the retaining wall and the stream. Between Eastway Drive and the retaining
wall, a fenced off storm water management basin is also present, this basin has a riprap
outfall structure as well as a concrete emergency spillway that both direct into the right
bank of Douglas branch. The southern side of the riparian area is made up of a fairly high
steep embankment leading up into the residential back yards along Pinecrest Avenue

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 - 14-218
Douqlas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3. 2014
Substantial historic residential refuse dumping has occurred in areas along this
embankment, and a few refuse piles remain. Observations of the repair and restoration
efforts are further detailed in the "Project Impacts" section below.
PROJECT IMPACTS
Proposed project plans were designed by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. and are
detailed in Figure 3. The project involved repairs to existing in- channel enhancement
measures as well as installation of new banks stabilization and in- channel bed
stabilization measures. This project occurred along 8881f of the channel, and represents
a permanent impact resulting in no loss of jurisdictional waters.
The project impacts area combination of repairs to in- channel and bank enhancement
measures that were installed as a part of the original Douglas Branch Phase II restoration,
and installation of new natural channel design bed and bank stabilization measures.
Repairs included adding and compacting nprap behind rock cross vanes that had become
perched or were being undermined (see Photos 1 and 3), replacement of a non-
functioning constructed riffle with a new variable constructed riffle with logs (see Photo
11) and replacing a failed log embankment that was protecting a sewer manhole with a
combination boulder toe and vegetated geognd structure (see Photo 5) New constructed
riffles were installed in areas where bed degradation has been apparent, often
immediately upstream of existing rock cross vanes (see Photos 1, 6, 8 and 10).
Additionally, a log cross vane in combination with a constructed riffle was installed in an
area where it was necessary to redirect stream power to the center of the channel in order
to prevent bank erosion (see Photo 4) In a number of areas where bank erosion had
previously been apparent, banks were graded back at slopes that were permissible by the
surrounding topography and were matted with coir matting and seeded (see Photos 2,7, 9,
10, and 11).
All areas disturbed by construction have been seeded with a native seed mix. At the time
of post construction observations (October 17, 2014), a stabilization cover of annual rye
grass was beginning to become well - established in disturbed areas Stream banks that
have been re- graded and matted are also scheduled to be planted with live -stake
plantings.
Protected Species
S &ME's consideration of potential protected species habitat began with a review of
existing records obtained from federal and state sources The U S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) list of federally protected species (updated December 26, 2012) was
consulted for a listing of protected species documented within Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina This review identified four protected species, three plants and one
animal Listed flora and fauna and their federal rank and county status are identified in
Table 2 Explanations of rankings are included at the end of the table.

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 -14 -218
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3, 2014
Table 2: Federally Protected Flora and Fauna Summary
Specie
deral Rank
Status ^�4Habitat
Present
„yPC�ounty
Echinacea laevigata
E
Current
No
Smooth coneflower
Hehanthus schweindzu
E
Current
No
Schwemitz's sunflower
Lasmigona decorata
E
Historical
No
Carolina heelsplitter
Rhus michauxn
E
Historical
No
Michaux's sumac
” E = Endangered
As part of the protected species review, S &ME also reviewed the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files of Element
Occurrence (EO) and Natural Heritage Areas available from NC OneMap This review
found no extant EOs of protected species on record within a one -mile radius of the
project area.
As stated previously S &ME has conducted field reviews of the project site on numerous
occasions. The proposed project area consists of fully forested riparian area as well as
access corridors approaching from the back of a large commercial complex Riparian
corridors and areas under full canopy are not the preferred habitat for the plant species of
concern, and none of the three listed plant species were observed Based on these
conditions and past assessments of the area, the project area was not considered to
provide potential habitat for protected terrestrial species with a likelihood of occurring in
Mecklenburg County
Though the Carolina heelsplitter is listed (historically) for Mecklenburg County, the
receiving drainage of the project (Briar Creek) has no documented occurrences of
Carolina heelsplitter and these tributaries are not part of its designated critical habitat
The highly urbanized watershed and dominance of hardpan bed substrate throughout the
project area makes it poor habitat for mussels
A digital copy of this PCN will be provided to the USFWS - Asheville Field Office
Cultural Resources
A digital copy of this PCN will be provided to the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), requesting that they review their records regarding cultural,
archaeological, or historical resources in or near the project area and to provide written
comments regarding the interests of their agency A review of SHPO's the HPOWEB
GIS Web Service indicated that there were no properties currently listed in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or eligible for listing in the NRHP within a half -mile
radius of the project

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 -14 -218
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3. 2014
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
The channel restoration repairs and additions have been designed to maximize ecological
functional uplift while minimizing impacts to the surrounding mature forest Access
corridors were limited to currently disturbed areas and the existing sewer rights -of -way to
the extent practical. Additionally, small equipment was used to limit impacts outside of
repair areas and to minimize clearing of additional vegetation. Work was conducted
around mature trees, in order to maintain a near complete canopy of trees To prevent
sedimentation of downstream portions of the affected streams, construction and repairs to
in- channel structures was conducted in the dry through the use of coffer dams
ADDITIONAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Efforts have been made to meet the conditions of NWP 27 as well as the regional
conditions of the NWP and conditions associated with WQC 3885 Channel stability
enhancements have largely been designed to limit the use of riprap armoring, except for
one instance where limited nprap backfill was used to stabilize existing rock vanes
Cobble placed for constructed riffles was keyed in to the bed of the stream and was
mixed with finer gravel substrate in order to approximate typical natural cobble riffle
habitat Where possible, variability of this habitat was further improved through the use
of diagonal log cross structures.
Appropriate erosion and sediment control practices were implemented to meet water
quality turbidity standards. Best Management Practices employed for the project were in
compliance with the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual," and the local governing authority Impacts have
been avoided and minimized, and appropriate measures will be taken during construction
to allow flow and circulation patterns of waters of the U S. to remain unaffected
Following construction, disturbed areas adjacent to the work site were restored to a stable
grade and disturbed areas were appropriately seeded and restored A native restoration
seed mix and native planting plan was used for the channel banks and disturbed areas
adjacent to the proposed restoration
The proposed project has not result in additional impervious surface
MITIGATION
The Douglas Branch repairs and modifications were designed to order to meet the goals
of the Cyrus / Douglas stream restoration project and provide stream enhancement to an
appropriate level to meet the 1 5.1 mitigation ratio that had been applied for this segment
of stream enhancement as a part of t the Cyrus /Douglas Branch Stream Restoration Site
Specific Mitigation Plan (September 2008) 2014 marked the fifth and anticipated last
year of monitoring for this project As these repairs are a significant modification to the
project, an additional year of monitoring will occur along the project area in order to
verify that these repairs and modifications have successfully enhanced stream condition.
6

After - the -Fact Notification for NWP 27 S &ME Project No 4335 -14 -218
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications November 3, 2014
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed AFN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with authorization of this project under NWP 27 If you have questions or
require additional information, please feel free to contact Isaac Hinson at (704) 336 -4495
or ihmson @charlottenc gov.
Sincerely,
D. David Homans
Project Scientist
Chris Daves, P W.S
Senior Reviewer
Reviewed and Authorized by
Isaac Hinson, P.W S
Water Quality Program Specialist
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Attachments
Do, Af
Darrin M Peine, QEP
Project Manager
cc. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
USFWS, Asheville Field Office (digital copy)
SHPO, Raleigh (digital copy)
7

Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - USGS Topographic Map
Figure 3 - Project Design Plans

REFERENCE: ESRI STREETMAP DATASET , Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., b
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY METI, Esri China (Hon
OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY
a, ©OpenStreetMap c Project Location
FORANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
SCALE: 1 = 1 mile FIGURE NO.
#S&ME SITE VICINITY
DATE: 10-29-14
DRAWN BY: DDH DOUGLAS BRANCH
PROJECT NO: 1
WWW.SMEINC.COM STREAM ENHANCEMENT REPAIRS / MODIFICATION
4335 -14 -218 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
u
'•
S
r
o
y
L
D
N
O
m
•J•
Norris 9i
`_
•r
t a
x
tl
141
^
s
v`a=a
V
�SdS
P ��k'oo
d
b
Al
♦
t �`
�4
s'
Ch iltutie
-416L�
Country
ifs
r luh
Charlotte
H'r'+�ory,;��
a� !`
♦
5 IS
y
Ay°
^
Q
�r
A
E� ?rgre...
; -
�Pa° c
of
��•tf_W>K�.Z7E
5e u,
a
4
-
s
4
1
O
n°
a
'Qy
�
Rd
c
7
9,
P
i Woodfawn RQ
�
n
s
1�?1PIS
Park Hqh
F
AL
j
rv1 gym ado
4 r
v
pC
9�
gr
0 1
2
Miles
REFERENCE: ESRI STREETMAP DATASET , Del-orme, USGS, Intermap, increment P Corp., b
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY METI, Esri China (Hon
OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. SBME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY
a, ©OpenStreetMap c Project Location
FORANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
SCALE: 1 = 1 mile FIGURE NO.
#S&ME SITE VICINITY
DATE: 10-29-14
DRAWN BY: DDH DOUGLAS BRANCH
PROJECT NO: 1
WWW.SMEINC.COM STREAM ENHANCEMENT REPAIRS / MODIFICATION
4335 -14 -218 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

:: � . �' T �- � � :. ,� :vim � . _ � : \ . _ , , -.�•.
�4
i . . 4. _
I L 'x
` 14,
sre
y Vic: a v rgreen Cemetely
CIL
111001. N
O , ,
t r•� .
74J i �, •fir.
f. �-
oy i?000 2,000`% l„
BB t
REFERENCE: 1993 CHARLOTTE EAST [NC] 1:24,000 USGS QUAD SHEET i m
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, IT IS NOT MEANT Repaired Enhancement Section
FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS
ACCURACY. S &ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR
ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. - �I Douglas Branch Phase II Restoration Reach
VV h
SCALE: 1 __ 2,000. FIGURE NO.
DATE: 10-29-14
S &ME USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
A
PROJECT NO:
DRAWN BY: DDH DOUGLAS BRANCH L
WWW.SMEINC.COM STREAM ENHANCEMENT REPAIRS / MODIFICATION
L 4335 -14 -218 ENGINEERING LICENSE NO: F -0176 CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

Pre - Construction Notification

W ATF9QG
650
�i
r
Office Use Only
Corps action ID no
DWQ project no
Form Version 1 3 Dec 10 2008
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version
Pre - Construction Notification PCN Form
A. Applicant Information
1
Processing
1 a
Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1 b Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number 27 or General Permit (GP) number
1c
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes
® No
1d
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply)
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
[:1401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
le
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification
® Yes ❑ No
For the record only for Corps Permit
❑ Yes ® No
1f
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in -lieu
fee program
❑ Yes
® No
1 g
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties If yes, answer 1 h
below
❑ Yes
® No
1 h
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑ Yes
® No
2
Project Information
2a
Name of project
Douglas Branch Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modifications
2b
County
Mecklenburg
2c
Nearest municipality / town
Charlotte
2d
Subdivision name
N/A
2e
NCDOT only, T I P or state
project no
N/A
3
Owner Information
3a
Name(s) on Recorded Deed
Mecklenburg County (easement holder)
3b
Deed Book and Page No
3c
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable)
3d
Street address
600 E 4th ST 11th Floor
3e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28202 -2816
3f
Telephone no
3g
Fax no
3h
Email address
Page 1 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a
Applicant is
❑ Agent ® Other, specify Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
4b
Name
Isaac Hinson, PWS
4c
Business name
(if applicable)
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
4d
Street address
600 East Fourth Street
4e
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28202
0
Telephone no
704 - 336 -4495
4g
Fax no
704 - 336 -6586
4h
Email address
ihinson @charlottenc gov
5
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a
Name
David Homans
5b
Business name
(if applicable)
S &ME, Inc
5c
Street address
9751 Southern Pine Blvd
5d
City, state, zip
Charlotte, NC 28273
5e
Telephone no
704 - 523 -4726
5f
Fax no
704- 525 -3953
5g
Email address
dhomans @smemc com
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form —Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1
Property Identification
1a
Property identification no (tax PIN or parcel ID)
12909121
1 b
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees)
Latitude 35 210397 Longitude - 80 78393
(DD DDDDDD) ( -DD DDDDDD)
1 c
Property size
Work Area approximatly 0 66 acres
2
Surface Waters
2a
Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc ) to
Briar Creek
proposed project
2b
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water
Briar Creek Class C
2c
River basin
Lower Catawba River Basin (WBD HUC 03050103)
3
Project Description
3a
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application
The project area consists of the enhancement reach section of the Cyrus Douglas Stream Restoration Project located
downstream of Eastway Drive The project area is made up of a fully forested riparian area located between a
commercial shopping center and a steep embankment along the back of residences on Piencrest Avenue Prior to
repairs and modifications the stream channel had undergone some stream enhancement measures, though these were
of limited benefit and some channel degradation and bank erosion remained The channel bed in this area is largely
made up of saprolite hardpan which is acting as bedrock
3b
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property
None
3c List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property
888 If within the project area
3d
Explain the purpose of the proposed project
The goal of the project is to restore and enhance aquatic habitat through natural channel design and bio- engineering
while also generating stream mitigation credits for City of Charlotte
3e
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used
The project involves a combination of repairs to in- channel and bank enhancement measures that were installed as a part
of the original Douglas Branch Phase II restoration, and installation of new natural channel design bed and bank
stabilization measures Repairs included adding and compacting nprap behind rock cross vanes that had become
perched or were being undermined„ replacement of a non - functioning constructed riffle with a new variable constructed
riffle with logs and replacing a faded log embankment that was protecting a sewer manhole with a combination boulder
toe and vegetated geognd structure New constructed riffles were installed in areas where bed degradation has been
apparent, often immediately upstream of existing rock cross vanes Additionally, a log cross vane in combination with a
constructed riffle was installed in an area where it was necessary to redirect stream power to the center of the channel in
order to prevent bank erosion In a number of areas where bank erosion had previously been apparent, banks were
graded back at slopes that were permissible by the surrounding topography and were matted with coir matting and
seeded
Small equipment was used for the constuction of this project in order to limit impacts to adjacent vegetation and riparian
areas Egwment used included small track mounted dozers, front end loaders, and excavators
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
® Yes [-I No El Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments Action ID #2003 -30554
4b If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
❑ Preliminary ® Final
of determination was made?
4c If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Agency /Consultant Company Carolina Wetland Services
Name (if known)
Other
4d If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation
Jusisdictional determination was included as a part of Action ID #2003- 30554, unknown date of determination result
5. Project History
5a Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions
Cyrus Douglas Stream Restoration was prevously authorized under Action ID #2003 -30554 and DWQ project No 03-
0244
6 Future Project Plans
6a Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, explain
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

C Proposed Impacts Inventory
1 Impacts Summary
la Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply)
❑ Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ❑ Buffers
❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2 Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted
2a
2b
2c
2d
2e
2f
Wetland impact
Type of jurisdiction
number —
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
(Corps - 404, 10
Area of impact
Permanent (P) or
(if known)
DWQ — non -404, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
W6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ Yes
❑ Corps
❑ No
❑ DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts
2h Comments No wetlands were observed within the project area
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted
3a
3b
3c
3d
3e
3f
3g
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
Type of jurisdiction
Average
Impact
number -
(PER) or
(Corps - 404, 10
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
DWQ — non -404,
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(INT)?
other)
(feet)
feet)
S1 ®P FIT
Stream
Restoration
Douglas Branch
® PER
❑ INT
® Corps
® DWQ
20
888
S2 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S3 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S4 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S5 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
S6 ❑ P ❑ T
❑ PER
❑ Corps
❑ INT
❑ DWQ
3h Total stream and tributary impacts
888
31 Comments
Page 5 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U S then individually list all open water impacts below
4a
4b
4c
4d
4e
Open water
Name of waterbody
impact number —
(if applicable)
Type of impact
Waterbody type
Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ❑P ❑T
02 ❑P ❑T
03 ❑P ❑T
04 ❑P ❑T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g Comments No open waters are located within the project area
5 Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below
5a
5b
5c
5d
5e
Wetland Impacts (acres)
Stream Impacts (feet)
Upland
Pond ID
Proposed use or purpose
(acres)
number
of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g Comments
5h Is a dam high hazard permit required
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no
51 Expected pond surface area (acres)
5j Size of pond watershed (acres)
5k Method of construction
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form
6a
❑ Neuse ❑Tai- Pamlico El Other
Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman
6b
6c
6d
6e
6f
6g
Buffer impact
number —
Reason
Buffer
Zone 1 impact
Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or
for
Stream name
mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Temporary T
im act
required?
B1 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B2 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
B3 ❑P ❑T
El Yes
❑ No
6h Total buffer impacts
61 Comments
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization -
1a Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project
Channel restoration repairs and modifications were designed to maximize ecological functional uplift while minimizing impacts
to the surrounding mature forest
1 b Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques
Access corridors were limited to currently disturbed areas and the existing sewer rights of way to the extent practical
Additionally, small equipment was used to limit impacts outside of repair areas and to minimize clearing of additional
vegetation Work was conducted around mature trees, in order to maintain a near complete canopy To prevent
sedimentation of downstream portions of the affected streams, construction and repairs to in- channel structures was
conducted in the dry through the use of coffer dams
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U S or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ® No
2b If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply)
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
projects
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3 Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a Name of Mitigation Bank
3b Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type
Quantity
3c Comments
4 Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached
❑ Yes
4b Stream mitigation requested
linear feet
4c If using stream mitigation, stream temperature
❑ warm ❑ cool ❑cold
4d Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only)
square feet
4e Riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4f Non - riparian wetland mitigation requested
acres
4g Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested
acres
4h Comments
5 Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan
Page 7 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

6 Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation?
❑ Yes ® No
6b If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation Calculate the
amount of mitigation required
Zone
6c
Reason for impact
6d
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier
6e
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
15
6f Total buffer mitigation required:
6g If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e g , payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund)
6h Comments
Page 8 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1 Diffuse Flow Plan
la Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why
❑ Yes ❑ No
Comments
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0%
2b Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ® No
2c If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why The proposed project is a stream
restoration project being undertaken by a municipal stormwater authority
2d If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan
❑ Certified Local Government
2e Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ DWQ Stormwater Program
❑ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
City of Charlotte
❑ Phase II
3b Which of the following locally - implemented stormwater management programs
❑ NSW
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply)
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other
3c Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes - ❑ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑ Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a Which of the following state - implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ ORW
(check all that apply)
❑ Session Law 2006 -246
❑ Other
4b Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1 Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal /state /local) funds or the
® Yes ❑ No
use of public (federal /state) land?
lb If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑ Yes ® No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑ Yes ❑ No
letter )
Comments
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H 1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B 0200)?
2b Is this an after - the -fact permit applications
® Yes ❑ No
2c If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s) As impacts to
jurisdictional waters due to stream restoration repairs are typically considered to be authorized under the original NWP 27
authorization with no further notification of agencies required, installation of these repair measures proceeded without
notification Upon further assessment of the proposed repairs, it was noted that a number of in- channel structure installations
and bank grading activities occurred that were outside of the areas originally authorized It was therefore determined that
USACE notification and authorization was likely required for the completed project under NWP 27
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes ® No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b If you answered 'yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description
The project is not considered a "growth- inducing" project as the proposed channel restoration is occunng within an
existing conservation easement and will not have any discernable effect on growth in the region
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non - discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility
The proposed project will not generate wastewater
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5 Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes ® No
habitat?
5b Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
❑ Yes ® No
impacts?
E:1 Raleigh
5c If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted
❑ Asheville
5d What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
A digital copy of this application will be provided to the USFWS - Asheville Field Office Field review of the project area
did not indicate the presence of habitat or endangered species listed for Mecklenburg County The project area and
vicinity are not located in a Designated Critical Habitat Review of Element Occurrences on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program Geographic Information Systems (GIS) files found that there were no known extant occurences of
threatened or endangered species within a 2 -mile radius of the proposed project
6 Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitats
❑ Yes ® No
6b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
http //ocean flondamanne org /efh_ coral /ims /viewer htm
7 Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes ® No
status (e g , National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
A digital copy of this application will be provided to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) A
review of the HPOWEB GIS Service indicates no sites on the NHRP or determined eligible for listing on the NHRP within
a half- mile of the project area
8 Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a Will this project occur in a FEMA - designated 100 -year floodplam?
❑ Yes ® No
8b If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements
8c What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? The proposed project will be constructed outside of the
100 -year FEMA floodplain http //polaris mecklenburgcountync gov
Isaac Hinson, PWS�
11/3/2014
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
Applicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided
Page 11 of 12
PCN Form — Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

Site Photographs

View of cross vane repairs and short constructed riffle installation
upstream of the vane.
View of the erosion at the right vane arm of the vane presented in Photo 1,
prior to repairs (9/15/2014).
View of graded and matted banks, reshaped riprap outfalll, and stabilized
View of cross vane that has been stabilized with additional compacted View of the area upstream of the cross vane presented in photo 3, prior
rock on the upstream side. to repairs (9/15/2014)
cross vane.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Douglas Branch
Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modification
Charlotte, North Carolina
PAGE 1of3

View of new log cross vane and constructed riffle.
View of the eroding banks in the same area presented in Photo 5,
prior to repairs (9/15/2014).
View (from the opposite bank) of the area where the log cross vane in View boulder toe protection and vegetated geogrid installed in order to
Photo 4 was installed, prior to repairs. protect an existing sewer manhole.
View of new constructed riffle with variable logs.
View of bank repair area where banks were formerly undercut banks were
graded at 3:1 slope , matted and seeded.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Douglas Branch
Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modification
Charlotte, North Carolina
PAGE 2 of 3

View of a rock constructed riffle installed upstream of an existing cross View of re- graded and matted bank in an area that had previously View of the same bank presented in Photo 9, prior to repairs (9/15/2014)
vane. experienced bank erosion.
View of graded and matted banks and constructed riffle installed in an
saprolite outcrop area that had previously experienced bank erosion.
View of approximately the same area presented in Photo 10, prior to
repairs (3/3/2014)
View of variable log / rock constructed riffle installed over the previously
installed constructed riffle and the downstream graded and matted bank.
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Douglas Branch
Stream Enhancement Repairs / Modification
Charlotte, North Carolina
PAGE 3of3